Smithsonian Natural History Museum: Global Cooling Exhibit Under Attack

How long do you think it will be before it's taken down altogether? With this administration and the pressure it puts on organizations that don't fall in line with its propaganda, I expect it to be gone by Christmas. Maybe Thanksgiving.

Is the climate still warming? (question) Are we speeding up the process or warming? (question) Is the Earth warming as a result of Human activity? (question) Are summers still hotter? (question) Are Winters cooler or longer? (question). So, it snows in the South? (rhetorical question).

Facts aren't easy to come by Kat. There are a lot of people spouting what I can only call "[censored]s" in peer reviewed journals these days.

Kat's an idiot. Typical of the tree-hugger mentality. Personally, i am doing my part to reduce the CO2 plantfood in the atmosphere by drinking all the CO2 i can. Pepsi, Beer, Champagne... bring it on. Let's save the earth by drinking more beer. Kegger, anyone? Makes just as much sense as the balderdash being passed off as 'science' by the warmers.

Poor poor Kat. I really do feel for her. She has no concept of natural science. She just sounds like any other simpleton out there who relies on the mainstream media for her 'education'. And while she's at, she's trying to have a bet both ways as well! She'd be a great 'climate campaigner' - but give her lack of natural science understanding - perhaps she is!! Kat - you have my sympathies.

CO2 is a trace element in our atmosphere. Approx. 0.3% is CO2 and increases caused by man are less than 0.003% some measurements place it at 0.001%. Let's make a simple experiment. Go on your roof and if it has 1000 grey shingles and you paint a 1/3 of one shingle a charcoal color. How much affect of the temperature of your house would that make? Answer is so small it would be lost in the other major factors such as wind, rain, snow, shady trees and direct sunlight. The basic physics alone refute AGW.

Now let's try the REAL math!
Gore and his fellow associates started investing more than 10 years ago, (estimates say $ 100,000,000) in companies that would profit from Cap and Trade. They began touting AGW ( and thus causing their companies value to rise exponentially).

Mr. Gore literally has 100 million reasons to promote AGW and refute any counters claims. Who would you trust to tell you the truth if $ 100 million dollars hangs in the balance?

Excluding trusted relatives:
How many are politicians? How many are lawyers? How many are both?

You do the math!

Can there be a better reason to question AGW?

Estimates for valued investments were $ 100,000,000 or 100 million dollars(not sure why it was truncated.

Stephen: I believe that your math is incorrect WRT the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I believe that CO2 is closer to 0.03% not 0.3% (300 ppm = 300/1,000,000*100 = .03%)

Cheers

Erwin,

Science is not an organization, an academy or a consensus. If it were validated by consensus, Copernicus would be considered a fool.

It involves hypothesis, theory, testing and observation. And observation nullified many of the modeling predictions of the IPCC. NASA's Godard institute has documented either a stable or cooling trend since 98 - not what was predicted by the IPCC models. You saying the last 10 years are the warmest in human history flies in the face of ... human history. As I can recall, Greenland has been marginally populated and without any agriculture to speak of in the last ten years (last 700 years actually). But during the medieval warm period, a time lasting about 400 years they had a bustling farm economy while England produced wines. Also, the Roman Warm Period was considerably warmer than today. These warm periods were marked by growing economies and abundant crops.

This is not a right wing conspiracy. These are truly facts. Accurate temperature records have been kept since the late 1890's. During that time, temperatures declined from 1940 to 1979 to the point the media rang the alarm for the new ice age. Then from 1998 temperatures have been stable or in decline. So that makes approximately, 50 years of 110 years of record keeping with no increase. Notable is the decline from 1940-79. Industrial output worldwide almost tripled, CO2 levels increased but while temperatures declined. This is not accounted for in the IPCC models. Again this is not right wingnut kook news. These facts are widely available.

Now let's examine the ice records. CO2 historically overall correlates with temperature rise and fall. From a distance, the graphs look in lock stop. Now zoom in and you'll see CO2 always lags behind temperature in some cases by almost 800 years. It's nature. Heat up a beer can or a soda and CO2 rise to the top and escapes into the atmosphere. Now take that to a global level and substitute the ocean for your beer. At 380 parts to 100,000, CO2 is truly a trace gas in the greenhouse gas scheme of things. Methane and Water Vapor dwarf it.

Now to the money train. From cap and trade, carbon offsets, Planet Green, alternative energy stocks and products, to environmental groups, to scientific grants, to Green Barbie, AGW is the gift that keeps on giving. Unlike a proven hazard like asbestos, which once proven to cause cancer, now has a finite limit on removal and lawsuits. Its gravy train eventually dries up. With AGW, since it will never be definitively proven or will ever be upon us, its alarm state can keep ringing, becoming an endless well of funds. Fear sells. If you follow the money trail, many of your vaunted scientific institutions have compromised the research through serous conflicts of interest. The current state of many academies and institutions is you will get muzzled, fired or marginalized if you speak out against AGW. Not because your science is bad, but the threat you pose to funding (see Al Carlin).

Chew on this while you stew. Which company was a major player in funding research to prove AGW? Not Greenpeace. Not the Sierra Club. Not even the IPCC. Good Ole Enron. Yes, Enron, the mega ship of land pirates. The once largest corporation in a America. You ask why? Follow the money. They had a huge stake in becoming the worlds biggest trader in carbon offsets. They made billions in the government's program in sulfer dioxide offsets (a real pollutant) and had every intention of making a killing on carbon offsets.

So please, don't say it's a right-wing conspiracy. Enron was populated and run with as many right wingers as fast as you can say "Texas". It's about money. And like science, greed knows no political party.